Methodology
How SIGNAL produces intelligence briefings — our sources, scoring system, and commitment to transparency.
Source selection
SIGNAL monitors 40+ credentialed expert sources — former intelligence professionals, defense analysts, OSINT researchers, and established think tanks. We do not monitor social media chatter, anonymous forums, or unverified accounts. Every source in our registry has a documented track record and institutional affiliation.
Sources include organizations like RAND Corporation, CSIS, Carnegie Endowment, Bellingcat, ISW, Lawfare, and individual experts such as retired CIA senior executives, former National Intelligence Officers, and military strategists. All data is acquired through public RSS feeds, official government APIs, and open protocols.
NATO/Admiralty reliability code
Every source is rated using the NATO Admiralty Code (AJP-2.1, STANAG 2511), which independently evaluates source reliability and information credibility. A reliable source can transmit bad information, and an unreliable source can occasionally report accurately. The two dimensions are assessed separately.
| Rating | Source reliability | Example |
|---|---|---|
| A | Completely reliable | Primary government document |
| B | Usually reliable | Major think tank, established defense outlet |
| C | Fairly reliable | Specialist blog with track record |
| D | Not usually reliable | Anonymous channel, new source |
| E | Unreliable | Known to publish inaccurate content |
| F | Cannot be judged | First-time source, insufficient history |
Epistemic status tags
Every claim in a SIGNAL briefing carries an epistemic status tag indicating our confidence level. These are not opinions — they reflect the number and quality of independent sources supporting a claim.
Verified by 3 or more independent, reliable sources. The highest confidence level.
Supported by 2 independent sources. Strong evidence but not fully corroborated.
Analytical judgment based on patterns and context. Not directly sourced but logically supported.
Single source, unverified. Always labeled as such — the reader should weigh accordingly.
Inference with low evidence base. Included when the speculation itself is noteworthy.
Cannot assess reliability. Insufficient information to judge.
AI-assisted analysis
SIGNAL uses AI (Claude by Anthropic) to summarize articles and synthesize daily briefings. Every AI-generated briefing goes through human editorial review before publication. The AI is instructed to:
- •Only use information explicitly stated in source texts
- •Cite every claim with its source
- •Use hedging language — “the article states,” “according to the source”
- •Explicitly state “source does not specify” rather than inferring
- •Present disagreements between sources rather than picking sides
All published briefings carry a visible “AI-assisted analysis” label and machine-readable metadata in compliance with the EU AI Act Article 50 transparency requirements.
Content-level scoring
SIGNAL tracks prediction accuracy by source type and claim category — never by individual name. We do not publish trust scores, accuracy leaderboards, or credibility ratings for named people. This is a deliberate design decision to avoid profiling risk and ensure our analysis is fair and defensible.
Data practices
- •Raw article text is deleted after 7 days — only AI-generated summaries are retained
- •Full data provenance chain for every ingested item (source URL, timestamp, content hash, robots.txt status)
- •X/Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube transcripts are permanently excluded
- •All summaries are abstractive (rewritten by AI) — never verbatim reproduction
SIGNAL Intelligence Platform · Methodology last updated April 2026